• 0 Posts
  • 271 Comments
Joined 2 months ago
cake
Cake day: April 30th, 2024

help-circle


  • I guess most the 400.000 - 800.000 Euromaidan protestors were CIA agents in Russias view then?

    No, obviously, in the same way it would be ridiculous to claim that every single person who supports separatism is a secret agent for Russia. The claim in both cases is that the movement received foreign support, allowing it to convince more ordinary people to support it than they would have otherwise.

    It’s well known that many people in Eastern European countries don’t trust Russia one bit after their experiences in the USSR.

    Russia is not the USSR. And most people experienced a decline in quality of life, across every objective metric, following its collapse.

    It’s also well known that many people in eastern Ukraine have ethnic, cultural, and family ties to Russia, so it wouldn’t be surprising if a lot of them wanted to have more favorable relations with them. This goes back to when the Soviets transferred the territory to Ukraine in the first place.

    Before the war, people weren’t really aware of the situation in Ukraine and there were 100 other problems that seemed more urgent

    Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Americans don’t actually care about Ukrainians, most people barely knew they existed and couldn’t find the country on the map. The only reason people started caring is because they started being relevant to state interests.

    Ultimately this has to be decided by the Ukrainian people.

    No it won’t. The Ukrainian people do not have the option to vote on whether or not to accept territorial concessions, because they don’t have a democracy, and even what pretense of democracy they used to have has been suspended due to the war. The Ukrainian state may get to decide that, but that is not the same as the Ukrainian people. You don’t seem to be separating the state’s interests from the people’s interests at all.






  • Thank you. We can either have a good faith discussion based on facts and evidence and what was actually said, or we can have this cable news-tier bullshit of putting words into mouths and bad faith mischaracterization. I’d prefer the former.

    Now, your claim is that Russia started the civil war as a pretext to invade and that the separatists are just Russian proxies. On the other hand, the Russian narrative would claim the same thing about the Euromaidan coup. I treat both of those claims with roughly equal skepticism. I don’t doubt that both movements have some degree of organic support, or that both have received foreign funding and support. I’ll also note that, for example, the American revolution had support from the French, so I don’t consider either movement accepting foreign support automatically disqualifying.

    Regardless, the question is what the best scenario is going forward. I don’t see either side as being particularly concerned with the well-being of the people living there, or in actual democratic representation or anything like that. As far as I can see, it’s just about US/Ukrainian state interests vs Russian state interests, and I don’t really have a dog in that fight. The interests of states are generally disconnected from those of the people.

    In my opinion, if people really cared so much about the Ukrainian people, then we should’ve been providing them with foreign aid for domestic development, long before any of this started. And if that had happened, the people would be happy and comfortable and loyal to whoever provided it. Instead, conditions declined, people became resentful and felt that there was nothing to lose, and now we have this conflict and people are being forced into a meat grinder against their will. It would be a better use of funds to accept territorial concessions and divert the resources used for war towards rebuilding. Likewise, Russia could’ve used the funds they’re using now to relocate the people loyal to them into Russia. This was is wasteful and destructive and benefits no one but the people in power on both sides.










  • Skill issue.

    Of course the opponent is always going to claim you’re wrong, that doesn’t mean you can’t mount a competent response. If their tactics are so incredibly effective that there’s no way to counter them, then steal those tactics and throw them right back at their face. Trump isn’t even an unknown quantity, they’ve got teams of people working for 8 years to come up with an answer to his approach, if Biden still isn’t up to the task then he needs to step aside and let someone else handle it.


  • You shouldn’t be. The rich supporting fascists (and vice versa) is nothing new.

    Excerpts from Blackshirts and Reds, by Michael Parenti

    To impose a full measure of austerity upon workers and peasants, the ruling economic interests would have to abolish the democratic rights that helped the masses defend their modest living standards. The solution was to smash their unions, political organizations, and civil liberties. Industrialists and big landowners wanted someone at the helm who could break the power of organized workers and farm laborers and impose a stern order on the masses. For this task Benito Mussolini, armed with his gangs of Blackshirts, seemed the likely candidate.

    In 1922, the Federazione Industriale, composed of the leaders of industry, along with representatives from the banking and agribusiness associations, met with Mussolini to plan the “March on Rome,” contributing 20 million lire to the undertaking. With the additional backing of Italy’s top military officers and police chiefs, the fascist “revolution”—really a coup d’état—took place. . .

    In Germany, a similar pattern of complicity between fascists and capitalists emerged. German workers and farm laborers had won the right to unionize, the eight-hour day, and unemployment insurance. But to revive profit levels, heavy industry and big finance wanted wage cuts for their workers and massive state subsidies and tax cuts for themselves.

    During the 1920s, the Nazi Sturmabteilung or SA, the brown-shirted storm troopers, subsidized by business, were used mostly as an antilabor paramilitary force whose function was to terrorize workers and farm laborers. By 1930, most of the tycoons had concluded that the Weimar Republic no longer served their needs and was too accommodating to the working class. They greatly increased their subsidies to Hitler, propelling the Nazi party onto the national stage. Business tycoons supplied the Nazis with generous funds for fleets of motor cars and loudspeakers to saturate the cities and villages of Germany, along with funds for Nazi party organizations, youth groups, and paramilitary forces. In the July1932 campaign, Hitler had sufficient funds to fly to fifty cities in the last two weeks alone.

    In that same campaign the Nazis received 37.3 percent of the vote, the highest they ever won in a democratic national election. They never had a majority of the people on their side. To the extent that they had any kind of reliable base, it generally was among the more affluent members of society. In addition, elements of the petty bourgeoisie and many lumpenproletariats served as strong-arm party thugs, organized into the SA storm troopers. But the great majority of the organized working class supported the Communists or Social Democrats to the very end. . .

    Here were two peoples, the Italians and Germans, with different histories, cultures, and languages, and supposedly different temperaments, who ended up with the same repressive solutions because of the compelling similarities of economic power and class conflict that prevailed in their respective countries. In such diverse countries as Lithuania, Croatia, Rumania, Hungary, and Spain, a similar fascist pattern emerged to do its utmost to save big capital from the impositions of democracy. . .

    Both Mussolini and Hitler showed their gratitude to their big business patrons by privatizing many perfectly solvent state-owned steel mills, power plants, banks, and steamship companies. Both regimes dipped heavily into the public treasury to refloat or subsidize heavy industry. Agribusiness farming was expanded and heavily subsidized. Both states guaranteed a return on the capital invested by giant corporations while assuming most of the risks and losses on investments. As is often the case with reactionary regimes, public capital was raided by private capital.

    At the same time, taxes were increased for the general populace but lowered or eliminated for the rich and big business. Inheritance taxes on the wealthy were greatly reduced or abolished altogether.



  • Nothing he revealed was a shock, I was joking with my friends about them listening in on 2009 if not earlier.

    Yeah, but you didn’t have proof.

    The real world impact of the leak was a net negative for Americans.

    Absolutely ridiculous. You just can’t distinguish between the state’s interests and the people’s interests. So what if the US’s global image is damaged? That doesn’t affect me. If anything, I’m glad, when the US’s global image was better it meant it could get away with getting involved in stupid imperialist wars that made life worse for everyone but the ruling class. Their interests are directly opposed to mine and hurting them helps me.

    Had he been willing to go to jail for it the issue would have stayed in the for front and people would have put a lot of effort into getting him released, and I would have been a supporter of that initiative.

    Again, this is literally the only reason you’ve given for why he should’ve done that, that you personally would’ve liked him more, which I don’t believe for a second. Nobody gives a shit what you think, certainly not enough to do something stupid and self-destructive. Snowden would’ve been an idiot not to protect himself.